Community Development
Taking Stock of New Supermarkets
in Food Deserts: Patterns in
Development, Financing,
and Health Promotion
By
Benjamin W. Chrisinger
Stanford Prevention Research Center,
Stanford University School of Medicine
S
MENT
EST
http://www.frbsf.org/community-development
MMUNITY
July 2016
Working Paper 2016-04
NTER FOR
CE
CO
EV
D
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
101 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
www.frbsf.org/cdinvestments
Working Paper
NV
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO
INVESTMENT CENTER
ELO
PMEN
T
I
Taking Stock of New Supermarkets in Food Deserts:
Patterns in Development, Financing, and Health Promotion
Benjamin W. Chrisinger, PhD, MUEP
Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine
ABSTRACT
Motivated by disparate healthy food access in neighborhoods across the US, federal, state, and
local initiatives have emerged to develop supermarkets in "food deserts." Differences in the
implementation of these initiatives are evident, including the presence of health programming,
yet no comprehensive inventory of projects exists to assess their impact. Using interviews, public
databases, and media archives, I collected details (project location, financing, development,
health promotion efforts) about all supermarket developments under "fresh food financing"
regimes in the US, 2004-2015. In total, I identified 126 projects. Projects have been developed in
a majority of states, with concentrations in the mid-Atlantic and Southern California regions.
Average store size was approximately 28,100 square feet, and those receiving financial
assistance from local sources and New Markets Tax Credits were significantly larger, while
those receiving assistance from other federal sources were significantly smaller. About 24
percent included health-oriented features; of these, over 80 percent received federal financing. If
new supermarkets alone are insufficient for health behavior change, greater attention to these
nuances is needed from program designers, policymakers, and advocates who seek to continue
fresh food financing programs. Efforts to reduce rates of diet-related disease by expanding food
access can be improved by taking stock of existing efforts.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve System.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade, programs have been created at all levels of government to improve access
to healthy foods by developing supermarkets in “food deserts,” typically disadvantaged
communities with low physical access to affordable, acceptable healthy foods (1,2), and that are
disproportionately affected by diet-related chronic illnesses (3,4). The constellation of programs
to encourage supermarket development in food deserts grew steadily since the creation of the
Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative (PA-FFFI) in 2004, which initiated a line of
policies that explicitly related access to full-service supermarkets with health disparities (5,6).
Following the lead of PA-FFFI architects, such as The Food Trust (TFT), a food access advocacy
nonprofit, and The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), a community development financial institution
(CDFI), similar programs emerged nationwide, including the federal Healthy Food Financing
Initiative (HFFI). These programs, commonly called “fresh food financing,” require substantial
public and/or private financing to overcome start-up constraints (typically hundreds of thousands
to millions of dollars), present a substantial investment in underserved neighborhoods with
ancillary effects beyond food access (i.e. employment opportunities, tax revenues), and introduce
greater quantity and variety of foods than related projects (i.e. corner stores, mobile markets) (7–
9).
Because of physical, economic, and political variations between sites, planning processes and
development strategies used for specific projects are notably different. Existing health
evaluations of new retailers in food deserts provide examples of these differences, as they
include a national chain retailer, regional chains developed with city and state incentives, and a
cooperative market (10–15). Each has a unique community context; thus, to form expectations of
retailers, including those around public health effects, we should first understand how they differ
and why it matters.
METHODS
Data Collection
No comprehensive list of fresh food financing projects currently exists. I employed a crosssectional design to create this database, which required a range of sources (see Table 1). Project
inclusion criteria consisted of: 1) funding from a food access-dedicated source, such as HFFI, or
described by officials or media as addressing “food access” or “food desert” issues; and 2) built
or substantially renovated a food retail outlet; and 3) described as a grocery store or supermarket
(i.e. not a corner store). This approach was intended to capture projects beyond those funded by
major programs, while narrowing the entire range of food access interventions (i.e. farmers’
markets, corner stores, mobile markets, etc.).
The project database included project location (exact address), date the store opened, its size (in
square feet) and number of store employees, and sources of financing. I also classified stores in
terms of business structure: large national chains (nationally-recognizable presence, such as
Save-a-Lot, Safeway, or Whole Foods), regional chains (several stores in a specific metropolitan
region), and local retailers (only one store). Additionally, I noted if store business models were
cooperatives (operated under an employee or member-ownership model), nonprofits (did not
seek to maximize profits, driven by a social mission), or discount retailers (offered reduced
1
prices and more limited selections). I imported sources into NVivo 10 and coded them according
to project(s) described.
Table 1. Secondary Data Sources used to Identify Fresh Food Financing Supermarket Projects in
the U.S., 2004-2015.
Type of Data
Source
Name
Author
Description
Dedicated “Healthy
Food Access”
Sources
Healthy Food
Access Portal
TRF, TFT, PolicyLink
Database of reports,
articles, case studies and
other web resources
HFFI Grantee
Convening
Documents
TRF, Healthy Food
Access Portal
Self-reported use of HFFI
funds
Novogradac
NMTC Database
Novogradac
Self-reported NMTC
project locations and
allocation amounts
CDFI Fund HFFI
Awardee List
CDFI Fund
HFFI-NMTC, HFFI-FA
recipients
HHS CED
Awardee List
HHS
CED recipients
Financing-Based
Sources
Supermarket
Industry Sources
Newsmedia
HFFI Grantee List USDA
Recipients of HFFI
funding
Newsletter
Archives
Progressive Grocer,
Supermarket News,
FMI Daily Lead
Daily/weekly food
retailing industry
newsletters
Food Marketing
Institute Report
FMI
Short report on industry
efforts to expand food
access
National, regional, Various outlets
local news reports
Media coverage of efforts
to expand food access
Abbreviations: HHS, Health and Human Services; CED, Community Economic Development; CDFI,
Community Development Financial Institution; PA-FFFI, Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative;
CA-FWF, California FreshWorks Fund; NMTC, New Markets Tax Credit; FFRI, Fresh Food Retailer
Initiative.
2
Virtual Site Checks
Using Google Street View imagery from 2007-2015, I verified the location and status
(completed, uncompleted, closed) of retailers, and identified development types: stand-alone
store (unconnected parcel surrounded by surface parking), shopping plaza (accompanied by other
retailers and surrounded by surface parking), mixed-used (large development featuring colocated or integrated housing and retail), neighborhood store (retailer in urban area without
surface parking lot and embedded on city block), or main street store (storefront on main street
with limited parking, high pedestrian access).
Analyses
I generated descriptive statistics for quantitative project characteristics, and two-tailed t-tests
(Alpha=5%) using StatPlus (Version 6.0.3) to identify significant differences in means between
classes of projects. With ArcGIS 10.0, I mapped projects and classified them by US Census
region (20). I identified themes to describe models of financing, development, and health
promotion. Data collection and analysis took place from January 2013 to February 2016.
RESULTS
Summary of Federal, State, and Local Fresh Food Financing Programs
Though there were as many combinations of incentives as there are projects (see Table 2), many
of the following initiatives served as models for subsequent funding sources; thus, these specific
examples may provide a relevant sense of where and how funds are generally directed.
Many state-level initiatives emulated the nation’s first program, PA-FFFI, which was established
in 2004 with $30 million of funding from the Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee
(16). Following this initial investment, PA-FFFI leveraged nearly $150 million from other
sources of capital to create a diverse fund of grants and low-interest loans to develop or preserve
food retail in food deserts (17). Eligible projects for PA-FFFI had to be: “located in a low- to
moderate-income census tract; provide a full selection of fresh foods; [and] locate in areas that
are currently underserved” (18). While the program ended in 2010 after initial funds were
deployed, key stakeholders from PA-FFFI - TFT and TRF - continued efforts to develop
supermarkets in food deserts in Pennsylvania and beyond (19). Another state-level program, the
California FreshWorks Fund (CA-FWF), assembled multiple sources of funds to tailor financing
packages for specific projects. Announced in 2011, CA-FWF drew upon a broader range of
investors, including regulated (conventional banks) and unregulated (mission-driven entities)
lenders. This structure allowed CA-FWF to make grants and loans up to 90 percent of a project’s
value; this compares to a more typical rate of 60 percent that renders many challenging urban
sites undevelopable (20). Similar to PA-FFFI, CA-FWF stakeholders have positioned the fund as
a means of economic development and improving healthy food access. Though the Fund listed
the state as a partner, this support exists outside of the legislative process (21).
Partially modeled on PA-FFFI, the federal HFFI committed $400 million between three
agencies: the Treasury Department, Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) (22,23). Though originally enacted by President Obama in
2010, HFFI was formally passed by Congress as part of the Agricultural Act of 2014, and used
existing mechanisms to steer resources toward programs that increase healthy food access.
3
Table 2. Types of Incentives and Financing used for New Supermarket Development in U.S.
Food Deserts, 2004-2014.
Incentive
Type
Example(s)
New Markets Tax Credit
tax expenditure
(unique incentive)
HHS CED Grant
grant
(unique incentive)
CDFI Fund Financial
Assistance Award
grant (matching funds
required)
(unique incentive)
Community Development
Block Grant
locally-administered
grant
(unique incentive)
Other Federal
redevelopment sources
various
Enterprise Zones, American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Regional Large CDFI Program
tax credits, grants,
loans
TRF ReFresh
State
Fresh Food Financing
Program
grants and loans
PA-FFFI, CA-FWF
Redevelopment tax credit
tax expenditure
State NMTC Program
Community/economic
development grants
grant
PA Keystone Opportunity
Zones
Fresh Food Financing
Program
grants and loans
New Orleans FFRI
Tax abatements
tax expenditure
10-year tax abatement
Land incentives
lower development
burden
Land transfers, parcel
assemblage
Community/economic
development funds
grants
City government initiatives
Zoning
lower development
burden
amendments, special uses,
bonuses
Federal
Local
Abbreviations: HHS, Health and Human Services; CED, Community Economic Development; CDFI,
Community Development Financial Institution; PA-FFFI, Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative; CAFWF, California FreshWorks Fund; NMTC, New Markets Tax Credit; FFRI, Fresh Food Retailer Initiative.
4
Administered through the Treasury’s CDFI Fund, the New Market Tax Credit program
encourages development in low-income areas by offering tax credits against the investor’s
federal income tax. In Obama’s 2010 HFFI announcement, $250 million of the $400 million
overall funding commitment was designated from NMTC allocations to CDFIs. In an effort to
build capacity among CDFIs, the Fund also issued annual Financial Assistance (FA) awards up
to $2 million (26). From 2011-2014, 46/538 FA awards were designated for HFFI-related efforts
(HFFI-FA), and used for a variety of purposes, including loan fund capitalization or creating a
loan loss reserve, so long as the amount was matched by non-federal funds (27).
Local municipalities also attracted supermarkets to underserved areas in a variety of ways
including financing, in-kind support (land or technical assistance), and tax abatements. Special
incentive zones may be drawn by local officials or through more formulaic designations such as
USDA-defined food deserts. To fund initiatives requiring capital expenditures, cities may devote
federal redevelopment dollars to increasing food access; for instance, Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG), which many cities automatically receive based on a formula that
considers poverty and population, among other indicators. For example, New Orleans used
special post-Katrina CDBG funds to help seed their Fresh Food Retailer Initiative.
Rather than provide direct grant or loan support, the NYC Food Retail Expansion to Support
Health Initiative (NYC-FRESH) effectively reduced the cost of development for eligible food
retailers in designated parts of the city (28). This was achieved through zoning incentives,
including added development rights, lowered parking requirements, and permitting larger stores
in certain districts, as well as financial incentives, including exemptions or reductions of city
taxes. Similar strategies to relax development regulations or taxes also existed in other cities,
such as Washington, DC.
Summary of Fresh Food Financing Projects
Based on this methodology, 126 distinct projects were identified: 90 projects completed (the
earliest in 2005), and 36 projects listed as planned or in development. Of the 126, valid store size
(n=104), opening year (n=91), and employee counts (n=84) were obtained for the majority of
projects. Seventeen stores opened between 2005-2010, though the majority opened following the
implementation of HFFI (n=73 since 2011), as illustrated in Figure 1. Northeastern states had the
most projects (n=43), followed by Southern (n=35), Midwestern (n=28) and Western states
(n=20). More specifically, clusters of projects exist in Mid-Atlantic states and Southern
California, largely overlapping with major state-level initiatives in those regions (see Figure 2).
Nearly 2.9 million square feet of supermarket space has been built or planned, with an average
building area of just over 28,100 square feet (standard deviation = 22,056), and over 6,500 jobs
have been created (excluding construction jobs), with an average of 78 jobs per project (standard
deviation = 80). Forty-seven projects (37 percent of all projects) were developed on or in existing
supermarket sites.
5
Figure 1. Fresh Food Financing Projects in the US, 2004-2015, by Project Characteristics and Region.
The number of projects that included health features or were built on existing supermarket sites are also
noted. Data source: Author’s database.
Figure 2. Fresh Food Financing Projects in the United States, 2004-2014. Density overlay draws attention
to major city-based clusters of projects in places such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Diego
and Los Angeles. Data source: Author’s database.
6
Most projects were classified as shopping plazas (n=43) and stand-alone stores (n=37), while
mixed-use (n=16), neighborhood (n=11) and main street developments (n=3) were less prevalent
(see Figure 3). The most common types of retail operators were regional chains (n=54), though
local retailers (n=39) and large national chains (n=28) were relatively prevalent. In terms of
business structure, cooperatives (n=6), and nonprofits (n=6), discount stores (n=25) were also
represented. Health programming was noted in 30 projects, representing 24 percent of projects in
this study.
Figure 3. Average Characteristics of Fresh Food Financing Projects in the United States, 2004-2015.
Plaza and stand-alone developments were the largest projects in terms of both store size and number of
employees, and the most prevalent. Data source: Author’s database.
Local financing sources were the most prevalent (75 projects), while 73 projects used federal
funding, most often in the form of NMTCs (30 projects). State funds were similarly common,
with 33 projects using a state-level resource (see Table 3 for full summary of project and
development characteristics by financing levels). On average, projects receiving local funding
incentives or NMTC financing were significantly larger than those that did not, while projects
with financing from the HHS-CED grants or HFFI-FA were significantly smaller than those
without these types of funding (see Figure 4).
DISCUSSION
Themes of Financing and Development
Based on the types of stores and incentive packages used by fresh food financing projects,
several themes are evident. First, plaza and stand-alone types of developments were most
7
prevalent in this study, and also were the most common recipients of federal and local assistance.
This may indicate something of the size and scope of these types of projects, as well as their
capital requirements. For example, NMTC-financed projects were significantly larger than those
without that type of funding. Notable for urban food deserts and redevelopment efforts, plaza and
stand-alone projects require sites that allow low-density development and are not as easily
embedded within a traditional street grid.
Table 3. Project Characteristics and Levels of Financing for New Supermarket Development in
US Food Deserts, 2004-2015.
Financing Level
Federal
Project
Characteristics
Retailer Characteristics
State
Local
% w/in Project Characteristics (% w/in Financing
Level)
National
54 (21)
7 (6)
61 (23)
Regional
52 (38)
33 (55)
76 (55)
Local
72 (38)
33 (39)
36 (19)
Cooperative
83 (7)
0 (0)
33 (3)
Nonprofit
33 (3)
17 (3)
33 (3)
Discount Retailer
64 (22)
8 (6)
60 (20)
Health Program
83 (34)
40 (36)
60 (24)
Development Characteristics
Strip
100 (4)
33 (3)
33 (1)
Neighborhood
55 (8)
18 (6)
45 (7)
Mixed Use
56 (12)
13 (6)
88 (19)
Main Street
33 (1)
33 (3)
0 (0)
Plaza
63 (37)
37 (48)
56 (32)
Stand Alone
49 (25)
30 (33)
70 (35)
Old Site
67 (42)
39 (55)
46 (28)
Total
58 (100)
26 (100)
60 (100)
8
Figure 4. Differences in Average Size of Fresh Food Financing Projects by Funding Source, 2004-2015.
Bars represent the average size of store receiving a type of financing, and p-values are noted above for
differences in size between projects receiving and not receiving the financing type. The dashed line
represents average store size for all projects in the study. Data source: Author’s database.
Beyond raw numbers of financing levels, general themes of financing mechanisms were also
evident and are useful ways to consider how funds motivate different types of projects. Though
these categories are neither mutually exclusive nor all-encompassing, three models of financing
and development are offered as major trends in fresh food financing. First, a professionalized
model tends to follow processes espoused by TFT and TRF, typically including stakeholder
involvement, a regional or independent operator, and an assemblage of flexible financing tools
(29). Projects often use dedicated funding sources, federal (i.e. HFFI), state (i.e. CA-FWF, PAFFFI), or local (i.e. NYC-FRESH) to provide financing packages tailored to project needs.
The flexible financing made available by HFFI may have helped release a pipeline of food
access projects that had built up as public interest in food deserts rose leading up to 2011.
Additionally, the maturity of the fresh food financing industry, embodied by the professionalized
model of development, combined with familiar federal tools of community and economic
development is also likely to have contributed to the surge in projects over the last five years.
Second, a streamlining/fast-tracking model aims to lessen the burden associated with building or
expanding a supermarket, and is largely overseen by local authorities. The model centers on the
relationship between the development project and local government, who must identify eligible
projects or areas to receive incentives, and may also result from championing by local leaders.
For example, the NYC-FRESH program identifies eligible areas through an interactive website,
and also details the minimum eligibility standards in terms of the amount and variety of food
9
sold. Zoning and financial incentives range from allowing different uses by-right to easing
density standards and reconfiguring streets to allow for supply vehicles to access loading zones.
Finally, a start-up model describes instances when area institutions or organizations pursue new
retail development and typically fundraise beyond the development channels used by the first
two financing models. To cover costs, some retailers in this model operate alternative business
practices to conventional retailers, including cooperatives and nonprofits, or adopt a much
smaller retail footprint. Nevertheless, some start-up projects still receive traditional community
development funding, such as HHS-CED or HFFI-FI, both of which supported significantly
smaller than average projects.
Themes of Health Promotion
Health promotion goals are often framed as supplemental and post-development aspirations for
projects and few, if any, projects are held to health expectations at the outset. Nonetheless, some
supermarkets include explicit efforts to improve health. Projects with health features included
national, regional, and local retailers, nonprofits and deep discounters, and over 80 percent of
those projects in this study received some type of federal support. Overall, 24 percent of projects
in this study included health features, though these efforts varied widely. I characterize general
themes of these health-oriented activities below.
Some retailers oriented their business plan to include health in ways that may require a form of
subsidy or outside support. For example, Fare & Square (Chester, PA) operates under a missiondriven, nonprofit model that allows a greater focus on health and away from marketing of lesshealthy options. While the store offers an assortment of healthy and unhealthy items, it has also
made efforts to promote healthier options and provide a robust produce department. An emerging
business strategy of providing in-store healthcare has been led by Brown’s ShopRite Stores, a
regional operator in the Philadelphia area, which leases supermarket space to a Federally
Qualified Health Clinic. This is particularly notable in an industry where square footage equates
to retail sales, and because it requires early commitment in the development process.
Other retailers have included health features by obtaining outside support (technical and
financial) to implement programs, beyond the financing required to simply develop and open the
store. For example, while most Save-a-Lot developments do not include health-focused
programming, several stores in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago have partnered with local
health-focused stakeholders, including medical centers, community development organizations,
or social service providers. In Philadelphia, The Fresh Grocer, a repeat beneficiary of PA-FFFI,
has allowed researchers to conduct randomized in-store promotion and placement interventions
for healthier items (30).
Most broadly, the grocery industry has responded to growing consumer health awareness by
using a variety of wellness programming to attract and retain customers. Retailers may view
health and wellness as part of their brand, or they may incorporate health-promoting practices
without the knowledge of customers. These efforts range from basic marketing efforts of natural
and organic products, to hiring of store dietitians and wellness coordinators and implementation
of cooking classes and wellness rewards programs. Evaluation of many of these efforts is notably
limited.
10
Conclusion
Because little comparative knowledge exists outside professional circles, new policies and
programs to incentivize supermarket development cannot be fully informed by the history and
progress made in this arena. I employed a broad approach to describe different methods to fund
and develop new stores, as well as the different types of development outcomes.
My findings highlight the importance of retailer initiative in health promotion beyond offering
healthy options, including internally-managed programs and partnerships with outside entities.
As 80 percent of projects with health features received some type of federal financing, it is also
worth considering how this level of monetary support either motivates or enables retailers to
include health-promoting efforts or programs. Furthermore, in scenarios where retailers are
pursued as partners, in-store health promotion requirements are often cited as overly prescriptive;
thus, the current policy environment cedes the choice of whether or not to participate in health
promotion to the supermarket operator.
This study has several limitations. The constructed dataset incorporates a range of secondary
data; while pragmatic, this approach introduces potential error based on the reliability of sources,
and will not reflect undocumented projects. Additionally, it is likely that projects and programs
were unintentionally omitted from the study. However, the search methodology was intended to
capture a sufficiently large group of projects as to draw reasonable conclusions about the field as
a whole. Indeed, practitioners can improve on the method of database development by providing
their own proprietary information to future researchers.
Though nominally united under the banner of fresh food financing, projects are conceived of,
planned, and executed for a diverse set of reasons and through an equally diverse set of
pathways. As researchers seek to understand and compare how new stores might affect public
health outcomes, and as planners and advocates seek to initiate new projects, it is important to
contextualize existing projects within this diversity. Given recent suggestions that new
supermarkets alone are insufficient for health behavior change, greater attention to these nuances
is needed from program designers, policymakers, and advocates who seek to continue fresh food
financing programs (12,13).
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I declare no conflict of interest. During the study and manuscript preparation, I was supported by
a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and NIH/NHLBI Postdoctoral
Research Fellowship in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (Grant #T32-HL007034). I am
grateful for the input of Amy Hillier, PhD, Allison Karpyn, PhD, Eugenie Birch, PhD, and
Shiriki Kumanyika, PhD, on several iterations of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Andreyeva T, Blumenthal DM, Schwartz MB, Long MW, Brownell KD. Availability and
prices of foods across stores and neighborhoods: the case of New Haven, Connecticut.
Health Aff Proj Hope. 2008 Oct;27(5):1381–8.
2.
Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to
healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jan;36(1):74–81.
3.
Morland K, Diez Roux AV, Wing S. Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: the
atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Apr;30(4):333–9.
4.
Inagami S, Cohen DA, Finch BK, Asch SM. You are where you shop: grocery store
locations, weight, and neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):10–7.
5.
Giang T, Karpyn A, Laurison HB, Hillier A, Perry RD. Closing the Grocery Gap in
Underserved Communities: The Creation of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing
Initiative. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 May;14(3):272–9.
6.
Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee. Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing
Initiative [Internet]. 2010 Mar [cited 2015 Dec 20]. Available from:
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/labor/workingfamilies/PA_FFFI.pdf
7.
Goldstein I, Loethen L, Kako E, Califano C. CDFI Financing of Supermarkets in
Underserved Communities: A Case Study. Policy Publication, The Reinvestment Fund.
[Internet]. Philadelphia, PA: The Reinvestment Fund; 2008 Aug [cited 2015 Apr 20].
Available from: http://www.trfund.com/wpcontent/uploads/2008/06/Supermarkets_Full_Study.pdf
8.
The Reinvestment Fund. The Economic Impacts of Supermarkets on their Surrounding
Communities [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2015 Dec 20]. Report No.: Issue 4. Available from:
http://www.trfund.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/supermarkets.pdf
9.
TRF Commercial Real Estate Group. Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative
[Internet]. 2008 [cited 2105 Dec 20]. Available from:
http://planningpa.org/presentations08/fresh_food_financing.pdf
10. Cummins S, Findlay A, Higgins C, Petticrew M, Sparks L, Thomson H. Reducing
Inequalities in Health and Diet: Findings from a Study on the Impact of a Food Retail
Development. Environ Plan A. 2008 Feb 1;40(2):402–22.
12
11. Wang MC, MacLeod KE, Steadman C, Williams L, Bowie SL, Herd D, et al. Is the
Opening of a Neighborhood Full-Service Grocery Store Followed by a Change in the Food
Behavior of Residents? J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2007 Dec 30;2(1):3–18.
12. Elbel B, Moran A, Dixon LB, Kiszko K, Cantor J, Abrams C, et al. Assessment of a
government-subsidized supermarket in a high-need area on household food availability and
children’s dietary intakes. Public Health Nutr. 2015 Oct;18(15):2881–90.
13. Cummins S, Flint E, Matthews SA. New neighborhood grocery store increased awareness
of food access but did not alter dietary habits or obesity. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2014
Feb;33(2):283–91.
14. Fuller D, Engler-Stringer R, Muhajarine N. Examining food purchasing patterns from sales
data at a full-service grocery store intervention in a former food desert. Prev Med Rep.
2015;2:164–9.
15. Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Cohen DA, Beckman R, Steiner ED, Hunter GP, et al. Diet
And Perceptions Change With Supermarket Introduction In A Food Desert, But Not
Because Of Supermarket Use. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Nov 1;34(11):1858–68.
16. Evans D, Weidman J. Growing Network: Fresh Food Financing Initiative [Internet].
Governing. 2011 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.governing.com/blogs/bfc/Fresh-Food-Financing-Initiative-070711.html
17. Smith P. The Reinvestment Fund: A Healthy-Food Financing Leader [Internet].
Community Developments Investments. 2012 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/cdinewsletter/august-2012/healthy-foods-ezine-article-2-reinvestment-fund.html
18. The Reinvestment Fund. Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative: Providing Healthy
Food Choices to Pennsylvania’s Communities [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2016 Feb 29].
Available from: http://planningpa.org/presentations08/fresh_food_financing.pdf
19. The Reinvestment Fund. Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative [Internet]. Financing
and Development, The Reinvestment Fund. [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.trfund.com/pennsylvania-fresh-food-financing-initiative/
20. Sporte S, Howard C. The California FreshWorks Fund: Bringing Food to the Community
[Internet]. Community Developments Investments. 2012 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available
from: http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/cdinewsletter/august-2012/healthy-foods-ezine-article-4-ncbci.html
21. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. State Initiatives
Supporting Healthier Food Retail: An Overview of the National Landscape [Internet]. US
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/Healthier_Food_Retail.pdf
13
22. Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Evans: Idea for Farm Bill’s Healthy Food
Financing Initiative born in Pa. [Internet]. PA House of Representatives News Release.
2014 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.pahouse.com/Evans/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=35983
23. Treasury Public Affairs, USDA Office of Communications, HHS/ACF Press Office. Obama
Administration Details Healthy Food Financing Initiative [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2016 Feb
29]. Available from: http://wayback.archiveit.org/3926/20131018160911/http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/02/20100219a.html
24. Office of Community Services. CED Abstracts: CED HFFI Grantees FY 2011 [Internet].
Office of the Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and
Human Services. 2012 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/2011-ced-hffi-grantees
25. Office of Community Services. CED Grant Awards FY 2012 [Internet]. Office of the
Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.
2012. Available from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fy-2012-cedgrantees#car
26. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Community Development Financial
Institutions Program [Internet]. US Department of the Treasury. 2015 [cited 2016 Feb 29].
Available from: http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=7
27. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Searchable Award Database
[Internet]. US Department of the Treasury. 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from:
http://www.cdfifund.gov/awardees/db/index.asp.
28. City of New York. Food Retail Expansion to Support Health [Internet]. NYC.gov. 2013
[cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/html/2009/fresh.shtml
29. Harries C, Koprak J, Young C, Weiss S, Parker KM, Karpyn A. Moving From Policy to
Implementation: A Methodology and Lessons Learned to Determine Eligibility for Healthy
Food Financing Projects. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2014 Sep;20(5):498–505.
30. Foster GD, Karpyn A, Wojtanowski AC, Davis E, Weiss S, Brensinger C, et al. Placement
and promotion strategies to increase sales of healthier products in supermarkets in lowincome, ethnically diverse neighborhoods: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr.
2014 Jun 1;99(6):1359–68.
14